The agenda included: - Data Center use of Static DH (30 min) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-green-tls-static-dh-in-tls13/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-green-tls-static-dh-in-tls13/>
- National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCOE) project for visibility within the datacenter with TLS 1.3 (10min) aka implementing draft-green-tls-static-dh-in-tls13 - Discussion about the previous topic (40min) At the start of the Discussion portion of the agenda, Stephen Farrell talked about https://github.com/sftcd/tinfoil <https://github.com/sftcd/tinfoil>. At the end of the Discussion, the chairs asked for a hum about working on visibility in the datacenter, and the room was evenly split. Russ > On Jul 19, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Ryan Hamilton <r...@google.com> wrote: > > Can you provide more context for those of us not in the room? What was the > hum in reference to? > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com > <mailto:hous...@vigilsec.com>> wrote: > The hum told us that the room was roughly evenly split. In hind sight, I > wish the chairs had asked a second question. If the split in the room was > different for the second question, then I think we might have learned a bit > more about what people are thinking. > > If a specification were available that used an extension that involved both > the client and the server, would the working group adopt it, work on it, and > publish it as an RFC? > > I was listening very carefully to the comments made by people in line. > Clearly some people would hum for "no" to the above question, but it sounded > like many felt that this would be a significant difference. It would ensure > that both server and client explicitly opt-in, and any party observing the > handshake could see the extension was included or not. > > Russ > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
